Rule of Absolute Liability for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

PASSAGE: 8

Read the passage very carefully and answer the following questions.

In-State v. Sheo Prasad court held that a master was not liable for his servant's act in carrying oilseeds in contravention of the order made under the Essential, Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, on the ground that he had not the guilty mind. It is a well-settled principle of common law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless, a statute can exclude that element, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. It is also necessary to enquire whether a statute by putting a person under strict liability helps him to assist the State in the enforcement of the law: can he do anything to promote the observance of the law? A person who does not know that gold cannot be brought into India without a licence or is not bringing into India any gold at all cannot possibly do anything to promote the observance of the law. Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law."It is not enough merely to label the statute as one dealing with a grave social evil and from that to infer that strict liability was intended. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will assist in the enforcement of the regulations. That means that there must be something he can do, directly or indirectly, by supervision or inspection, by improvement of his business methods, or by exhorting those whom he may be expected to influence or control, which will promote the observance of the regulations. Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalising him, and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely to find a luckless victim.
Question : When an occupier of land allowed poisonous flowers, which he had not carried on to his land, but which were its natural produce, to seed, the seed was carried on to the adjoining land which was thereby injured. Then-

PASSAGE: 8

Read the passage very carefully and answer the following questions.

In-State v. Sheo Prasad court held that a master was not liable for his servant's act in carrying oilseeds in contravention of the order made under the Essential, Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, on the ground that he had not the guilty mind. It is a well-settled principle of common law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless, a statute can exclude that element, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. It is also necessary to enquire whether a statute by putting a person under strict liability helps him to assist the State in the enforcement of the law: can he do anything to promote the observance of the law? A person who does not know that gold cannot be brought into India without a licence or is not bringing into India any gold at all cannot possibly do anything to promote the observance of the law. Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law."It is not enough merely to label the statute as one dealing with a grave social evil and from that to infer that strict liability was intended. It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will assist in the enforcement of the regulations. That means that there must be something he can do, directly or indirectly, by supervision or inspection, by improvement of his business methods, or by exhorting those whom he may be expected to influence or control, which will promote the observance of the regulations. Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalising him, and it cannot be inferred that the legislature imposed strict liability merely to find a luckless victim.
Question : M, an industry situated in a thickly populated area is in the production of toxic gas. Due to a natural calamity, the underground storage tank was hostile. The gas escaped and spread in the area resulting in the death of N and his family. The question is that is M liable for tragedy? Decide.

Passage 

Read the following passage and answer the question

By analysing the need to modify the 19th-century rule of Strict Liability the apex court of India in M.C. Mehta case stated that "Moreover the principle so established in Ryland v. Fletcher of strict liability cannot be used in the modern world, as the very principle was evolved in the 19th century, and in the period when the industrial revolution has just begun, this two-century-old principle of tortuous liability cannot be taken as it is in the modern world without modifications''.

Justice Bhagwati also stated that the rule of strict liability evolved in the 19th century, the time when industrial developments were at the primary stage, in today’s modern industrial society where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry out development programmes, thus this old rule cannot be held relevant present-day day context. Also, one cannot feel inhibited by this rule which evolved in the context of a totally different social and economic structure. In India, the general rule of Ryland V. Fletcher is accepted, though the principle is needed to be modified in its application to the Indian consideration."

The difference between Strict and Absolute liability rules was laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, where the court explains as: Firstly, In Absolute Liability only those enterprises shall be held liable which are involved in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, this implies that other industries not falling in the above ambit shall be covered under the rule of Strict liability. Secondly, the escape of a dangerous thing from one’s own land is not necessary; it means that the rule of absolute liability shall be applicable to those injured within the premise and persons outside the premise. Thirdly, the rule of Absolute liability does not have an exception, whereas some exceptions were provided in the rule of Strict Liability. Also, in the case of Union of India V. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar, the view of the constitutional bench was that the rule of MC Mehta is not subject to any type of exception. Fourthly, the Rule of Ryland V Fletcher applies only to the non-natural use of land but the new rule of absolute liability applies to even the natural use of land. If a person uses a dangerous substance which may be a natural use of land & if such substance escapes, he shall be held liable even though he has taken proper care. Further, the extent of damages depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the institute. Supreme Court also contended that: The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to ensure that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activities in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and security and if any harm results on account of such negligent activity, the enterprise/institute must be held absolutely liable to compensate for any damage caused and no opportunity is to given to answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm caused without any negligence on his part

Question

.The case of Ryland v. Fletchers related to which liability?

Read the following passage and answer the questions. 

Liability law, an important component of the legal architecture, seeks to hold persons or entities liable for the harm or damage they cause to others. The terms strict liability' and 'absolute liability are the key oceans of the law.

Strict responsibility is a legal principle that holds an individual or entity liable for damages caused by their acts or activities, regardless of measures taken or intentions. The plaintiff does not need to prove carelessness or blame; all that is required is that the defendant's actions caused the damage. For example, if a pet tiger owned by an individual escapes and injures someone, the owner may be held accountable under strict responsibility, even though all reasonable steps were taken to avoid the escape.

However, strict responsibility is not without defences. Defendants may argue that the plaintiff freely embraced the risk or that the plaintiff's fault contributed to the loss, potentially absolving them from the obligation.

 Absolute liability, on the other hand, is a tougher form of culpability in which the defendant is held accountable for the damage they do, regardless of safeguards taken or defences raised. This principle refers to inherently harmful activities or substances where the risk of injury is so great that those involved are expected to bear full responsibility for any damages if any escape.

Following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the concept of absolute culpability evolved in India. The Supreme Court of India created the notion of absolute liability in its historic judgement (M.C. Mehta versus Union of India), holding the firm involved accountable for the disastrous repercussions of the gas leak, regardless of the safeguards they claim to have taken.

Question: A construction company is conducting blasting operations in a populated area. Despite following all safety guidelines and precautions, a flying rock from the blasting zone damages a nearby car. In this case: